I have dismally failed to track down what I wanted to find. But here goes:

Astro project works, The CIA used it for years with mixed results.

I've read of experiments with people who where able to enter into environments (using astro projection) and sent back info about specially set up areas. The example that most sticks in my mind is a woman who found a letter in a designate place. She couldn't open it, but she described in great detail the address and the wax that had been used to seal it.

Later when the distant lab was told to they opened the letter and left it out. She actually relayed the contents to the researchers and a 10 digit number that had been randomly generated.

Supposedly this is high end astro projection. IE better than most people attain.

I also miserably failed to find the records of soviet research, which supposedly includes an video taped event. A woman stopped a frogs heart with just her mind.

I read the soviets abandoned this research since it was suppose to be a weapon that never really worked outside of the lab

Ridicule me, I have no proof. And of course just because there's loads of quacks doesn't negate the possibility there real ones out there.

*Duly steps on the spot of shame with dunce hat, hoping someone will produce the evidence he couldn't find*

There is no theory that allows testable hypotheses to be formulated except that somehow people can guess information known to others, but unknown to themselves, correctly, with a probability greater than chance. It's just statistical fiddling about. Strictly for the woo-woos.

There is no theory that allows testable hypotheses to be formulated except that somehow people can guess information known to others, but unknown to themselves, correctly, with a probability greater than chance. It's just statistical fiddling about. Strictly for the woo-woos.

johno

Well one can in theory "test" whether in some way it occurs. Given the most likely, such tests will PROBABLY yield negative results, its a bit premature to say whether a testable hypothesis exists as to WHY such a thing exists.

(For the record, I've designed a simple experiment but have had a few problems with the details.) If you are aware of monte carlo simulation in your teaching of biological statistical methods, you might see my plan to avoid complex statistical analysis, assuming a "reasonable" random number generator. (I was playing with one based on digits of PI; it passed my FIRST test but I should test it further to calibrate it.)

Assuming my card experiment had a "positive" result, the most obvious hypothesis would of course be that there is a pattern in the card drawing that somebody has figured out. (Or somebody has access to a computer capable of breaking the encryption algorithm I'm planning to use.)

I have a copy of a paper PUBLISHED in the I.E.E.E (and subsequently completely and throughly debunked by other scientists) explaining REMOTE Viewing in terms of a crazy Quantum theory thing. If experiments were found consistantly TRUE ... who says that testable theories could NOT be shown to be there?

P.S., I would LOVE ideas on how to run my experiment better. (Its a hobby of course and I fully EXPECT the results to turn out negative and to show "chance" to be involved.)

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

There is no theory that allows testable hypotheses to be formulated except that somehow people can guess information known to others, but unknown to themselves, correctly, with a probability greater than chance. It's just statistical fiddling about. Strictly for the woo-woos.

johno

Well one can in theory "test" whether in some way it occurs. Given the most likely, such tests will PROBABLY yield negative results, its a bit premature to say whether a testable hypothesis exists as to WHY such a thing exists.

(For the record, I've designed a simple experiment but have had a few problems with the details.) If you are aware of monte carlo simulation in your teaching of biological statistical methods, you might see my plan to avoid complex statistical analysis, assuming a "reasonable" random number generator. (I was playing with one based on digits of PI; it passed my FIRST test but I should test it further to calibrate it.)

Assuming my card experiment had a "positive" result, the most obvious hypothesis would of course be that there is a pattern in the card drawing that somebody has figured out. (Or somebody has access to a computer capable of breaking the encryption algorithm I'm planning to use.)

I have a copy of a paper PUBLISHED in the I.E.E.E (and subsequently completely and throughly debunked by other scientists) explaining REMOTE Viewing in terms of a crazy Quantum theory thing. If experiments were found consistantly TRUE ... who says that testable theories could NOT be shown to be there?

P.S., I would LOVE ideas on how to run my experiment better. (Its a hobby of course and I fully EXPECT the results to turn out negative and to show "chance" to be involved.)

If information is transmitted from the sender to the receiver, the channel over which the information is sent must be extremely noisy because when evidence has been claimed it is always statistical: the probability of the match between the information transmitted and the information received occurring by chance is very low. The way to transmit information over a noisy channel is to send repeatedly and look for repetitions in the received data. The more times the same data are transmitted, the more likely it is that the information will be received. This is true whatever medium of transmission and reception is chosen . . . except for telepathy. I believe that there are the usual ad hoc excuses to explain this, including fatigue in transmitter or receiver, but without an underlying theory of transmission there is no reason to assume that fatigue need play any part in reducing the effectiveness of transmission or reception.

Bauer in his article ‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)

and he criticises the Langmuir criteria for the identification of pathological science, noting cases of unpathological science that seem to satisfy Langmuir's criteria, but on the whole I think that purportedly scientific endeavours that satisfy some of Langmuir's criteria are likely to be pathological.

Langmuir offered six characteristics of pathological science: 1. The magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the causative agent.2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limits of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.3. It makes claims of great accuracy.4. It puts forth fantastic theories contrary to experience.5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50 percent and then falls gradually to oblivion.

I think that telepathy satisfies criteria 1, 2, and 5, and possibly 4, and is an example of pathological science properly identified. Of these the most telling and persuasive is the first, and experiments in telepathy certainly satisfy it.

A: It's a fraud infested feild resulting in high levels of fakes. (cold readers, scam artists, ect). These may artifically lower the score.

B: Direct transfer of information is rarely claimed by people who are the most accurate. Instead they tend to describe seeing things, frequently as though under low visiblity conditions. Catching details is suppose to be hard.

C: You have no knowledge of what energy level is required.

Off to dig for the equake predictions and pshyic decetives (NO, NOT THAT CRAPPY SHOW)

At least you're in the closet. I thought I was in the closet until one day I realised I was outside the closet, naked, talking to the freckles on my arms as if they were soldiers, with people looking at me, and I ask them "hey! Where'd the closet go? Wasn't I in the whacko closet? How long have I been out of it?" and after a big pause, someone says in a small voice "... what closet?"

I would just like to point out that this post is gold.

Logged

If anything can mean everything, then nothing can mean anything.I can also be found at isgodimaginary.com

If information is transmitted from the sender to the receiver, the channel over which the information is sent must be extremely noisy because when evidence has been claimed it is always statistical: the probability of the match between the information transmitted and the information received occurring by chance is very low. The way to transmit information over a noisy channel is to send repeatedly and look for repetitions in the received data. The more times the same data are transmitted, the more likely it is that the information will be received. This is true whatever medium of transmission and reception is chosen . . . except for telepathy. I believe that there are the usual ad hoc excuses to explain this, including fatigue in transmitter or receiver, but without an underlying theory of transmission there is no reason to assume that fatigue need play any part in reducing the effectiveness of transmission or reception.

This idea is interesting. Noisy channel. I like it.

All the same, in order to demonstrate effect, one would have to use a smart technique taken into account the degree of noisiness of the channel but that STILL resulted in the correct message. For example, error correction codes that include ALOT of duplicate information ...

I need read this soon, I don't fully understand the idea of pathological science? (Would that be a 1 on Carl Sagan's scale?

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

At least you're in the closet. I thought I was in the closet until one day I realised I was outside the closet, naked, talking to the freckles on my arms as if they were soldiers, with people looking at me, and I ask them "hey! Where'd the closet go? Wasn't I in the whacko closet? How long have I been out of it?" and after a big pause, someone says in a small voice "... what closet?"